Well, if nothing can be eternal, and nothing can come from nothing... he's just proved the non-existence of gods.

Way to go, Oolon.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Is a reasonable estimate available on how much money has been spent on OOL research?

A local IDiot claims billons of dollars have been spent and I don't think that's anywhere near true.

Billions of dollars, over what span of time? If the IDiot is saying that the total amount of money ever spent on OOL research is billions of dollars, that might be true; if the IDiot is saying that it's billions of dollars per year, that's something else again. Likewise, are they talking about research funds in the US alone, or research funds all over the world?

Is a reasonable estimate available on how much money has been spent on OOL research?

A local IDiot claims billons of dollars have been spent and I don't think that's anywhere near true.

Billions of dollars, over what span of time? If the IDiot is saying that the total amount of money ever spent on OOL research is billions of dollars, that might be true; if the IDiot is saying that it's billions of dollars per year, that's something else again. Likewise, are they talking about research funds in the US alone, or research funds all over the world?

Even if it's "all over the world, ever", I'd be surprised if it came out to billions. †The experimental work is, as far as I know, all fairly small-scale chem-lab stuff - time-consuming, but hardly Big Science. †You don't need a particle accelerator or a radio telescope.

Edit: I suppose you've asked IDiot to supply evidence?

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

Sigh. The IDiot makes all sorts of tired old arguments (Species appear abruptly in the fossil record, remain constant over millions of years before disappearing, No fossil evidence for changes over time. Don't think even Behe would second that.

But the main problem is he stays away from debate, won't reply to debunking. When I get more time I'll launch a barrage. Am busy studying genetics at Coursera, wish I had some paper textbooks at hand, will try the local library tomorrow but don't have much hope.

I don't claim to be pure, and we've certainly ragged on poor O'Leary, but geez. Where all the sciency supermodels be at?

Any social gathering has its share of sexual energy, but grabbity is just juvenile and rude. You gotta wonder what if anything is going through these guys' minds. What do they think is gonna happen?

I often feel guilty about reacting -- even only silently, internally -- to a woman's looks/wit/vitality. I'm still listening to what she's saying but all I can think is holy crap what beautiful eyes/hair/voice w.h.y.

I have a couple of very attractive blonde friends who've dyed their hair and cut it off or tied it back because they've felt they weren't being taken seriously.

:-(

"Is a puzzlement."

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

I don't claim to be pure, and we've certainly ragged on poor O'Leary, but geez. Where all the sciency supermodels be at?

Any social gathering has its share of sexual energy, but grabbity is just juvenile and rude. You gotta wonder what if anything is going through these guys' minds. What do they think is gonna happen?

I often feel guilty about reacting -- even only silently, internally -- to a woman's looks/wit/vitality. I'm still listening to what she's saying but all I can think is holy crap what beautiful eyes/hair/voice w.h.y.

I have a couple of very attractive blonde friends who've dyed their hair and cut it off or tied it back because they've felt they weren't being taken seriously.

:-(

"Is a puzzlement."

But always remember that people who get bothered about so-called "sexual harrassment" and alleged "misogynistic behavior" are, at absolute best, making mountains out of molehills, because there aren't hardly any women who genuinely are on the short end of that kind of stuff. Isn't that right, S-dog?

Dave Luckett | October 19, 2012 8:18 PM | ReplyItís as I have remarked before about YECs in general. Byers isnít exactly handwaving evidence away. Rather, he canít comprehend it or perceive it. To him, it doesnít actually exist, as such.

To an pre-modern mindset - and Byers has one - evidence simply doesnít matter. What matters is strength of personal conviction, authority and repeated assertion. There is also argument, but of specific kinds - argument from (possible) consequence, argument ad populi. Weíve seen Byers and his cohort use both, but the most important thing is personal conviction. Byers believes what he believes because he believes it. Evidence, on the other hand, doesnít register.

The cornerstone of Byers ideas on the history of the Earth is that the Bible canít be wrong (authority), because itís the word of God. He simply assumes this, and repeatedly asserts it. A second foundational idea is that the only way the past can be known is by eyewitness statement - which in the case of Genesis, is God Himself. (Byers knows this, despite the fact that it is never actually claimed.) The evidence from fossils simply doesnít exist. These are nothing more than the remains of creatures that once existed. Thereís nothing to say that they are related to modern life.

The similarities in morphology and the biochemical evidence of precisely similar insertions, deletions, broken genes, etcetera, is also irrelevant. But not only irrelevant. Itís also meaningless. Byers ensures that it will forever remain meaningless to him by never attempting to inform himself about it. He simply ignores it. Its very meaninglessness is then an argument against it.

Which comes back to the same thing. Byers believes what he believes because he believes it. The values he has had deeply instilled into him is that this set of beliefs cannot be compromised. He will therefore do nothing whatsoever that might compromise them.

So itís useless putting evidence before him. He doesnít recognise it, and canít comprehend its very existence. Itís useless asking him to consider evidence. He wonít. He canít. That would be to imply that evidence is sovereign, when he knows that internal certainty, authority and repeated assertion is sovereign. He simply ignores evidence, because evidence does not and cannot matter.

Youíd think that the cognitive dissonance would eventually become unbearable, for Byers does use evidence in places where his belief system doesnít dictate otherwise. If he heard a breaking window in the next room, came in and saw shards of glass and a baseball on the floor, looked out of the broken window and saw a bunch of kids with a bat looking towards the house, heíd come to the obvious conclusion, and hence reconstruct a past event from evidence with no trouble at all. But his rigid mental compartmentalisation and cognitive dissassociation allows him to eschew this process where his convictions require.

Itís a sad case.

Quote

harold | October 20, 2012 10:04 AM | ReplyDave Luckett -

I agree with every word you said, very strongly, since I also constantly point out that the commonality shared by creationists (and most other science deniers) is authoritarian thinking.

I will offer one modification -

The cornerstone of Byers ideas on the history of the Earth is that the Bible canít be wrong (authority), because itís the word of God.Since a number of great humanitarian resisters of injustice over the years have given faith in religious principle as a motivation, stating creationist fundamentals this way runs the risk of creating confusion between self-sacrificing figures like Martin Luther King or Gandhi, and creationists.

This would be a mistake, as creationists tend to be authority-worshipers who seek privilege. Indeed, they often complain that societyís refusal to allow them to persecute others as much as they wish is ďpersecutionĒ directed toward them.

Therefore I would state it a bit differently -

ďThe cornerstone of Byersí (or any other typical creationistís) ideas on anything is that they must submit to certain ritual declarations to be accepted as members of the group they wish to identify with.Ē

Granted, they arenít all flexible opportunists (many of the elite probably are, and would probably ďconvertĒ to science tomorrow if creationism didnít pay the bills, but the rank and file arenít). Many of them would plausibly suffer a dissociative breakdown if someone managed to break through their denial, and doing that would probably require unethical techniques that would bring the movie ďA Clockwork OrangeĒ to mind.

Having said that, we shouldnít confuse them with people who hold strong abstract principles. Theyíre concrete authoritarians. The ďliteralĒ interpretation of the Bible is preferred because, while not coherent, such an interpretation is concrete. Attempting to interpret the Bible at any other level leads to the uncomfortable sensation that, no matter how inhumane parts of the Bible may be, some other parts condemn typical exploitive authoritarian behavior.

Their ďbeliefsĒ are self-serving and conformist, and should not be confused with the type of beliefs that less authoritarian figures have struggled with over the years.

Iím not suggesting that they consciously adopt self-serving beliefs. Itís an unconscious process.

But creationism is virtually always self-serving.

You simply donít see creationists deciding that they need to humble themselves, intentionally self-sacrifice, abandon material comforts, show love to their enemies, etc. Itís a self-serving authoritarian movement that seeks dominance over others.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Suppose each value of M has a standard deviation associated with it. What is the standard deviation of X? Is it a simpler calculation if the standard deviation of each M is the same?

This is from my wife's friend. It's been over 25 years since I've done statistics so I'm rusty and trying to brush up. Any help would be appreciated.

Oh...and the notation is the way it is because I've not figured out how to get series fonts to work.

Let me clarify:

1) You have †a number of random variables M_1 .... M_n and you form the product R= (1+M_1)(1+M_2)...(1+M_n). Those M_i are real valued, independent, and are following an identical distribution.

2) Are asking whether there is a random variable X such that the product R equals (1+X)^n ?

Obviously if n is even and those M are following the Gaussian law then such an X doesn't exist - the right hand side is always positive, while the probability for the left hand to be negative is positive :-)

Suppose each value of M has a standard deviation associated with it. What is the standard deviation of X? Is it a simpler calculation if the standard deviation of each M is the same?

This is from my wife's friend. It's been over 25 years since I've done statistics so I'm rusty and trying to brush up. Any help would be appreciated.

Oh...and the notation is the way it is because I've not figured out how to get series fonts to work.

Let me clarify:

1) You have †a number of random variables M_1 .... M_n and you form the product R= (1+M_1)(1+M_2)...(1+M_n). Those M_i are real valued, independent, and are following an identical distribution.

2) Are asking whether there is a random variable X such that the product R equals (1+X)^n ?

Obviously if n is even and those M are following the Gaussian law then such an X doesn't exist - the right hand side is always positive, while the probability for the left hand to be negative is positive :-)

Dieb -

1) I confess I'm confused on this point as well, but your summary is my take as well.

2) No, I don't think so. I think the friend is asking what the standard deviation of X would be given a standard deviation of Mi. On top of that, she wants to know whether the calculation is easier if the standard deviation of Mi is the same throughout the series. Seems to me that the calculation has the exact same difficulty either way as "calculation difficulty" seems somewhat subjective once you are dealing with standard deviations, but perhaps she's asking whether the notation of the calculation requires more variables if the standard deviation of Mi is not the same.

Your note on the Gaussian law gave me a chuckle. I don't think that my wife's friend was thinking in terms of physics when she posted the problem (but then, I don't actually know that) and I doubt it applies to any inverse square type calculation, but then that's a bit out of my area of knowledge anyway. I'm tempted to note the X likely can't exist for that reason though just to see her response. :-)

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. †Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

On a related note, now that Silvia Kristel has moved to the Great Airplane Toilet in the Sky...

No! Really? Dang I missed that!

Rumpled Sheets in Peace my dear!

Aw, crap. I hadn't seen that either. That just sucks.

That's what she said...

A linguistic question: how do people point out double entendres?

"That's what she said" seems to be a US coinage. The equivalent one in These Parts is often ". . . as the bishop said to the actress", which has more than a whiff of the music halls and Donald McGill postcards. A friend from Tipperary used to say ". . . she said as she fainted", which I suspect was his own invention, but is still a goodie.

On a related note, now that Silvia Kristel has moved to the Great Airplane Toilet in the Sky...

No! Really? Dang I missed that!

Rumpled Sheets in Peace my dear!

Aw, crap. I hadn't seen that either. That just sucks.

That's what she said...

A linguistic question: how do people point out double entendres?

"That's what she said" seems to be a US coinage. The equivalent one in These Parts is often ". . . as the bishop said to the actress", which has more than a whiff of the music halls and Donald McGill postcards. A friend from Tipperary used to say ". . . she said as she fainted", which I suspect was his own invention, but is still a goodie.

Any local varieties, anyone?

Here, the bishop/actress combination is the one I grew up with.

On a related note, an often-heard exclamation around these parts when someone farts or burps loudly in company: "More tea, vicar?"

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.